Recently, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision in the Nortel Networks and Lehman Brothers disputes. The judgment confirms that liabilities under Financial Support Directions (FSDs) and Contribution Notices (CNs), which are issued by the Pensions Regulator, will rank ahead of almost all other claims when a company becomes insolvent. The discussions in the case focused on whether FSDs and CNs are classed as 'provable debts', expenses of the insolvency or, indeed, neither.

In Finnerty v Clark, the Court of Appeal has given guidance on what constitutes "good and sufficient" grounds for the removal of administrators. In this case, shareholders of a company in administration were also substantial creditors of the company. They wished the administrators to raise proceedings under Section 244 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (extortionate credit transactions) to challenge loan agreements that had been entered into by the company prior to administration.

On August 9, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a non-insider's debt claim can be recharacterized as equity in Grossman v. Lothian Oil Inc. (In re Lothian Oil, Inc.).2 The Fifth Circuit, in reversing the district court, held that: (i) there is no per se rule limiting to insiders the recharacterization of debt claims as equity and (ii) non-insider debt claims may be recharacterized as equity under section 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The recent case of Stephen Petitioner offers some clarification regarding issues relating to the validity of appointment of administrators.

The Facts

On Tuesday morning, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) Board unanimously approved two rules regarding resolution planning: one rule for large bank holding companies and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (“FRB”),1 and the other rule for large banks.2

Sections 216 and 217 of the Insolvency Act impose draconian sanctions on directors of liquidated companies who reuse "prohibited names". Prohibited names are names that are identical to, or "suggest an association with", a company that has gone into liquidation and of which they were previously directors. The sanctions include criminal penalties and personal liability for debts. It has always been difficult for advisers to confidently advise directors whether a proposed name for a new company would be a prohibited name, given the vague nature of the phrase "suggest an association".

The FDIC Board approved a final rule on the orderly liquidation process, which was the culmination of a series of rulemaking efforts begun earlier this year. The rule implements several provisions of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act. Title II establishes an “orderly liquidation authority” (the “OLA”) through which the FDIC can be appointed as receiver and liquidate a covered financial company, such as a bank holding company, whose failure threatens to have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the U.S.

When creditors succeed in obtaining an order for relief in an involuntary Chapter 11 case and the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, who controls the appeals for those orders? According to an April 28, 2011 order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the correct answer is the Chapter 11 trustee.

The judgment in the case of Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (UKSC 2009/0222), which began to be heard by the UK Supreme Court on March 1, 2011,1 was handed down on July 27, 2011. The case concerns the enforceability of so-called “flip clauses,” which provide that payment obligations owed to different creditors, in this case the swap counterparty and the noteholders, “flip” in priority following a counterparty bankruptcy.

In a decision that is expected to have wide-ranging implications for secured lenders and reorganization plan sales nationwide, the Seventh Circuit’s June 28, 2011 opinion in In re River Road1 marks a jurisdictional split on the contours of credit bidding in bankruptcy. While this decision is squarely at odds with decisions of the Courts of Appeals for the Third and Fifth Circuits, its holding is in many respects a validation of Judge Ambro’s robust dissent in Philadelphia News,2 and is arguably more aligned with mainstream bankruptcy thinking on credit bidding issues.